A
Amaris
Guest
Good question. I'm not even sure where you can find the current up to date subscription numbers, much less what category each sub falls under.
Star Trek: Online
- Thread starter tranya
- Start date
- Status
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=155144
most of the people posting have life subs lmao
most of the people posting have life subs lmao
That is not even sort of like proof. The vast majority of players in any game do not go to the forums. Also the last poll they did is almost at 12,000 votes and that is a forum vote. So are you suggesting they have 10,000ish life time subscribers? I ask again provide proof to your claim.
A
Amaris
Guest
I ran a search through every post in that thread using the word "sub" as my search component, so that any post with the word "sub", "subscription", "subscriber" would immediately pop up. One instance was someone mentioning that they were a lifetime subscriber, the rest were signatures talking about being a lifetime subscriber, but no numbers or details.
After that, I ran the word "life" as a search component, which would have brought up "life", "lifer", "lifetime sub", "lifetime subscription", nothing at all other than a usage of the word "life" by the OP in that thread referring to his own, and references to lifetime subscriptions in signatures that did not have any detail or refer to the overall lifetime subscription numbers. So the end results is in that thread, none of them talk in any detail, let alone any official capacity, what the subscriber numbers are. Which makes the example link cited to be irrelevant and does not provide any information on the request for a link made claiming that 90% of subscribers are lifetime subscribers. I also make note that you have gone from saying "90%" to "Most", referring to the one thread you linked.
Phily B, whether it is "90%" or "Most", you will have to post something more concrete, or concede that you made the figure up based on your own opinion rather than factual data, and before you ask or say anything about this response, just remember: We're Star Trek nerds, Phily B, we will nitpick a suppositional statement to death just as quickly and efficiently as any line of Trek dialogue.
Ignore him. He's been trolling this thread for months.
I downloaded the 10GB free trial of Star Trek Online and played for over 2 hours and I have to say I am very disappointed, enough so that I uninstalled it. I am a big fan of Star Trek but am no fan of this game.
The graphics aren't particularly good at the highest settings, the ground combat is dull, space combat isn't much better either. The whole game is rushed and there is no love or care in it.
I like animations to be good in games but they very poor here. For example, I had to disable this borg device so I walked over and clicked the action button. What did my guy do? apart from the fact that he was a metre away from the device, he started typing on an invisible keyboard in mid air... unforgiveable. There are just so many things about this game that I hate already that I don't want to explore anymore of the game. I've seen enough bad things in this short time, I know when to quit. Games take up a large amount of my life so they have to be good!
Has anyone here played the following games?
- Mass Effect / Mass Effect 2
- Dragon Age Origins
- Oblivion
- Fallout 3
Now those are examples of great games. While they have no multiplayer mode, many things from the games above could be adapted to work online and this is the direction Star Trek Online needs to head towards. When I played 20 minutes of the above games, I knew they were fantastic games but I could tell within 10 minutes that Star Trek Online would be a huge disappointment. If Bioware or Bethesda Game Studios made Star Trek online, it would likely be amazing!
The graphics aren't particularly good at the highest settings, the ground combat is dull, space combat isn't much better either. The whole game is rushed and there is no love or care in it.
I like animations to be good in games but they very poor here. For example, I had to disable this borg device so I walked over and clicked the action button. What did my guy do? apart from the fact that he was a metre away from the device, he started typing on an invisible keyboard in mid air... unforgiveable. There are just so many things about this game that I hate already that I don't want to explore anymore of the game. I've seen enough bad things in this short time, I know when to quit. Games take up a large amount of my life so they have to be good!
Has anyone here played the following games?
- Mass Effect / Mass Effect 2
- Dragon Age Origins
- Oblivion
- Fallout 3
Now those are examples of great games. While they have no multiplayer mode, many things from the games above could be adapted to work online and this is the direction Star Trek Online needs to head towards. When I played 20 minutes of the above games, I knew they were fantastic games but I could tell within 10 minutes that Star Trek Online would be a huge disappointment. If Bioware or Bethesda Game Studios made Star Trek online, it would likely be amazing!
Last edited:
Bethesda did Star Trek: Conquest, Star Trek: Encounters, and Star Trek: Legacy.
Oops, I meant to say if Bethesda or Bioware made Star Trek Online, it would be amazing. Legacy had a good combat system and better graphics than Star Trek Online.
A
Amaris
Guest
Not really. I play STO on max graphic settings and it blows Legacy out of the water. Legacy's combat system on the PC was pure utter garbage. STO's needs work, but it's far superior. Even though STO gets criticized for lack of content, they get rave reviews for their space combat system, including the overall look and feel. Space combat is the best thing about that game, and it's what seems to keep people playing.
The games you listed are single player games. Comparing any of hose to an MMo is....less than useful.
Whether they are single player or not is irrelevant, they are very similiar games to what Star Trek Online is and a lot of their features could be implemented to work online.
Features aside, the games I listed are presented a lot better, have more care during development, have better graphics, less bugs and are a lot more interesting in my opinion. I am a huge fan of Star Trek but I really dislike Star Trek Online. Star Trek Legacy wasn't that great either but I found it more fun than this.
For those who enjoy Star Trek Online, all I say is good for you and keep on having fun, but for me... nah I will pass which is a shame as the game has a lot of potential
No really comparing MMO's to single player IS lees than useful. The single player game WILL be have better graphics, fewer bugs, and have more compelling game play. That is inherent in the differences in genre. You have to compare single player games to other single players games and MMO's to other MMO's
Whether they are single player or not is irrelevant, they are very similiar games to what Star Trek Online is and a lot of their features could be implemented to work online.
Features aside, the games I listed are presented a lot better, have more care during development, have better graphics, less bugs and are a lot more interesting in my opinion. I am a huge fan of Star Trek but I really dislike Star Trek Online. Star Trek Legacy wasn't that great either but I found it more fun than this.
For those who enjoy Star Trek Online, all I say is good for you and keep on having fun, but for me... nah I will pass which is a shame as the game has a lot of potential
Aeolusdallas,
Take my animation comment earlier for example. Do only single player games have the capability to accurately show animations? Having the main character type on an invisible keyboard, one metre away from the object that doesn't have a keypad on it is just appaling. If an NPC is working in engineering and you go over to talk, they don't stop work, they carry out the same repetitive animation while talking to you, yet they don't look at you. If it wasn't for the text, you would have no idea they were even in communication with someone.
The poor writing in this game doesn't even come close to the fantastic writing we know and love from Star Trek. The voice acting is also extremely poor. These two things I feel are actually insulting to Star Trek.
Ground missions are clumsy and too easy (even when I raised the difficulty) and AI are incredibly dumb. The space combat system of Star Trek Online seems to be the only thing going for this game, but even that is limited and cannot hold the weight of an MMO. Even when you die, there is no death penalty, you just respawn. This means there is no need to carefully plan ahead or use tactics when you can just rush in full force.
Like I said, I haven't played the game for too long but already, I feel like everything in the game is copy and paste with a few things changed. Beam down, have a battle, beam back up and do it all over again somewhere else.
I like the character customisation, I like the music and the sound effects which helps bring the atmosphere of Star Trek to the game, but overall, the game is too thin, too shallow, it's rushed, and it's presented very poorly. MMO games should be better than single player games, after all, a lot of them are subscription based but how a subscription is asked for in this game is beyond me.
Take my animation comment earlier for example. Do only single player games have the capability to accurately show animations? Having the main character type on an invisible keyboard, one metre away from the object that doesn't have a keypad on it is just appaling. If an NPC is working in engineering and you go over to talk, they don't stop work, they carry out the same repetitive animation while talking to you, yet they don't look at you. If it wasn't for the text, you would have no idea they were even in communication with someone.
The poor writing in this game doesn't even come close to the fantastic writing we know and love from Star Trek. The voice acting is also extremely poor. These two things I feel are actually insulting to Star Trek.
Ground missions are clumsy and too easy (even when I raised the difficulty) and AI are incredibly dumb. The space combat system of Star Trek Online seems to be the only thing going for this game, but even that is limited and cannot hold the weight of an MMO. Even when you die, there is no death penalty, you just respawn. This means there is no need to carefully plan ahead or use tactics when you can just rush in full force.
Like I said, I haven't played the game for too long but already, I feel like everything in the game is copy and paste with a few things changed. Beam down, have a battle, beam back up and do it all over again somewhere else.
I like the character customisation, I like the music and the sound effects which helps bring the atmosphere of Star Trek to the game, but overall, the game is too thin, too shallow, it's rushed, and it's presented very poorly. MMO games should be better than single player games, after all, a lot of them are subscription based but how a subscription is asked for in this game is beyond me.
If you don' like MMO's that's fine but your complaints are well foolish when applied to an MMO. MMO's are shallow in comparison to most single player games. That is inherent in the genre.
As for writing...duh it's an MMO it's not going to have the kind of compelling story a single player game like Mass Effect can have. You have large numbers of people doing the same stories over and over. The story can only progress during expansion updates. And even then it has to be backwards compatible. and of course the AI is lacking it's an MMO! How advanced is the AI in WoW? No better than STO that's for sure.
You should be comparing STO to WoW not Mass Effect. No, STO is not the best MMO over all. WoW is more polished (it had a much bigger budget) EVE is more complicated (its a full sandbox) and has had 7 years to update it's self. Age of Conan looks prettier but is far more buggy. STO is a balance between those extremes.
STO for a MMO is very stable, it has good but not exceptional graphic on the ground and excellent graphics in space. Although EVE's space graphics are truly revolutionary.
All and all for a MMO that has only been out for 4 months STO is doing rather well. It will grow over the next few years...that's how MMO's operate. It seems to me, the problem is you don't like MMO's. STO was meant to take Star Trek and make an MMO in that universe and STO has done that.
Essentially every single one of your complaints is against the MMO genre and not STO in specific. So as I said it you just don't like MMO's that's a perfectly defensible position. But don't try and judge STO for what it's not STO is not a single player game.
EDIT what do you mean no death penalty? There most certainly is one. Just not in the default easy difficulty level.
MMo's require a subscription to first maintain the servers. Secondly for the updates, although those are offset with online mini purchases. MMO's survive by adding large amounts of content in updates 3 or 4 times a year and small updates around every monnth. Except in the first six months of so where there are many many smaller updates. MMO's add missions, raids, new areas, new classes and races and so on. In STO terms they will be constantly adding new ships, costumes, raidasodes, missions, races and the like. The big update coming in July is the Klingon update and the new Fed non combat mission system. Then I would imagine there will be a big Fed oriented update in September and then The Romulans added around Christmas.
EDIT all of this has been standard in MMO's for the last11 or 12 years. Including the pricing. That has not increased in price at all.
EDIT all of this has been standard in MMO's for the last11 or 12 years. Including the pricing. That has not increased in price at all.
It's good that you're sticking up for a game you like and I do like MMO's. I played 700 hours of R.O.S.E Online before buying Guild Wars, a game I've been a big fan of for a number of years now (I own all expansion packs for it too). In theory, Star Trek Online should be way better than those two games because I know how awesome Star Trek is but it's not... far from it.
Yes true, some of my complaints can be said for Guild Wars, but I believe I have some valid points. I know for sure that the ground combat system in Guild Wars is much better than Star Trek Online. I also know while the AI is not great in Guild Wars, it's good enough to keep me satisfied. I admit, Star Trek Online has some nice graphics in space but on ground, it's meh..
The death penalty wasn't in the game as default? It was added as an update? Whatever the answer, I mean it appears the game has no harsh penalties to death.
Aeolusdallas, there is more to a game than just new content. In my opinion, the game needs to be reworked from the core and no extra content is going to fix that. I've played for 2 hours, so I've seen only a small amount of content that the game has to offer, yet this is irrelevant to my opinion of the game. I don't wish to get in a debate, let's leave it at that. You like the game and many others do too, while I dislike the game (most review sites agree with me)
Yes true, some of my complaints can be said for Guild Wars, but I believe I have some valid points. I know for sure that the ground combat system in Guild Wars is much better than Star Trek Online. I also know while the AI is not great in Guild Wars, it's good enough to keep me satisfied. I admit, Star Trek Online has some nice graphics in space but on ground, it's meh..
The death penalty wasn't in the game as default? It was added as an update? Whatever the answer, I mean it appears the game has no harsh penalties to death.
Aeolusdallas, there is more to a game than just new content. In my opinion, the game needs to be reworked from the core and no extra content is going to fix that. I've played for 2 hours, so I've seen only a small amount of content that the game has to offer, yet this is irrelevant to my opinion of the game. I don't wish to get in a debate, let's leave it at that. You like the game and many others do too, while I dislike the game (most review sites agree with me)
Guild wars concentrates on ground combat. STO in space.....
Death Penalty is not default largely because of the Trek fans who think it would make the game to hard. And no most legitimate sites do not agree with you. They largly say that STO is a very competent middle of the road game but particularly revolutionary.
If Star Trek Online had the ground combat system of Guild Wars, it would be much better, agree? if Star Trek Online had the excellent writing and missions like Guild wars has, it would be a better game, is this fair?
I don't know what review sites you've been reading but I consider the big ones to be IGN and Gamespot
http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/startrekonline/index.html 5.5/10
http://uk.pc.ign.com/objects/142/14270158.html 6.8/10
http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/star-trek-online/1069983p1.html 2/5
http://www.incgamers.com/Reviews/1032/star-trek-online-review/2 gave it 6.8 out of 10
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/star-trek-online-review?page=3 6/10
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=238854 5.5/10
I had a look at Amazon reviews for this game too and again, fairly poor.
Anyway, glad you like the game, but we clearly have different standards. A "middle of the road" game is not good enough for me, especially when a subscription is involved.
I don't know what review sites you've been reading but I consider the big ones to be IGN and Gamespot
http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/startrekonline/index.html 5.5/10
http://uk.pc.ign.com/objects/142/14270158.html 6.8/10
http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/star-trek-online/1069983p1.html 2/5
http://www.incgamers.com/Reviews/1032/star-trek-online-review/2 gave it 6.8 out of 10
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/star-trek-online-review?page=3 6/10
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=238854 5.5/10
I had a look at Amazon reviews for this game too and again, fairly poor.
Anyway, glad you like the game, but we clearly have different standards. A "middle of the road" game is not good enough for me, especially when a subscription is involved.
I feel the same way. Some of the original ship designers (now replaced) clearly had no interest in Star Trek and were just going through the motions for a paycheck. CapnLogan (one of the new ship designers) is a Trek fan and has promised to make good some of the original in game ships when he is able.
Over all, I felt like Cryptic procured the ST property not because they were Trek Fans, but because they were in need of a theme for a MMO that would give them an established fan base and therefore a guaranteed customer base. They tried with Marvel, and when that collapsed they went to Champions. I don't play Champions, but the one friend I have who does is pretty disparaging about it and makes it seem like it's not a big money maker for them.
It is my opinion that Cryptic was holding the game City of Heroes/Villains back and that it only prospered and improved after they left it. I feel that they are not a very careful development group and are more concerned with profit and quantity over actual quality.
That said, I do have a lifetime subscription to STO and find it fairly enjoyable, even though it has only reached what I feel is 10% of its full potential. Now if only they had used a different engine that would have kept them from using the camera proximity excuse to make bloated interior environments.
Of those only two are bad reviews. the others are good or acceptable reviews
- Status
